BRUGH et al v. MOUNT ALOYSIUS COLLEGE et al
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Summary Judgment, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 1/6/2020. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LARRY BRUGH AND SUZANNE
BRUGH,
Plaintiffs,
)
Case No. 3:17-cv-71
)
)
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
v.
)
)
MOUNT ALOYSIUS COLLEGE AND
THOMAS FOLEY,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Introduction
This case arises from the termination and alleged demotion of Plaintiff Larry Brugh
("Larry") and the termination of his wife, Plaintiff Suzanne Brugh ("Suzanne") (collectively,
the "Brughs"), allegedly in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")
and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (the "PHRA"), from and by Defendant Mount
Aloysius College (the "College") and the College's former President, Thomas Foley
("President Foley"). Presently before the Court is Defendants' Mount Aloysius College and
Thomas Foley's (collectively, "MAC") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44). The
Motion is fully briefed (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 47, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63) and ripe for disposition.
For the reasons that follow, this Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART MAC' s
Motion.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Title VII claim as it arises under federal
law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' PHRA claim
because the claim forms part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is
proper because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the
Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III.
Factual Background
The Court derives the following facts from MAC' s Concise Statement of Material
Facts 1 (ECF No. 46), the Brughs' Response in Opposition (ECF No. 56), the Brughs' Concise
Statement of Disputed Material Facts (ECF No. 58), and MAC's Response (ECF No. 63).
These facts are undisputed unless noted otherwise.
A. The Brughs Begin Working at The College and Larry Witnesses Alleged
Racial Discrimination by The College
In 1985, Larry began working at the College as its Assistant Resident Director Intern.
(ECF No. 46 en 3.) Throughout the rest of the decade, Larry held the titles of Assistant
Director of Career Services and Assistant Dean of Student Services. (Id. enen 7, 11, 12.) By
1997, Larry held the title of Director of Career Services. (Id. en 31.) In 1988, Larry hired
Suzanne (nee Bryja) as the College's Assistant Director of Resident Life. (Id. en 17.) Larry
and Suzanne began dating within a few months and married on July 1, 1989. (Id. enen 17, 21,
23.)
1
In response to the Brughs' Emergency Motion to Strike (ECF No. 49), the Court struck all but 110
of MAC's factual assertions contained in its Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 46). (See
ECF No. 53 at 3 n.2.) The Court does not consider these stricken facts in deciding the pending Motion
but does recount several facts that it struck from the record in order to provide a complete picture
of the dispute at the heart of this case. All facts the Court relies on in deciding the case are facts still
contained in the record. Additionally, it appears that some of the facts that MAC cites to in its brief
are incorrectly cited, i.e., MAC cited the wrong paragraphs. (See, e.g., ECF No. 45 at 6 (citing ECF
No. 46 'I[ 208 while quoting material contained in 'I[ 212).) Accordingly, the Court will use those facts
as required to address MAC's arguments.
2
According to Larry, in 1992, he witnessed the College discriminate against a men's
basketball coach candidate and objected to this discrimination. (ECF No. 581111 4, 5). The
alleged discrimination apparently took the form of refusing to hire an African American
man as a head men's basketball coach because his wife was Caucasian. (ECF No. 5611186.)
When the College allegedly retaliated against the Brughs for Larry's objection, the Brughs
filed charges of employment discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission ("PHRC") against the College in 1997 and 1998. (Id. 11 6; ECF No. 46 1111 34,
40.) The first complaint charged that the College's then-President, Sister Mary Ann Dillon,
refused to appoint Larry to the post of Acting Dean of Students in retaliation for being
identified as a witness in a PHRC proceeding against the College. 2 (ECF No. 5811 6; ECF
No. 46 11 35.) The second complaint alleged that the College had given Larry a negative
performance evaluation because of both his identification as a witness in the PHRC
discrimination proceeding and because of his prior PHRC complaint. (Id. 1141.) The Brughs
and the College settled the charges in 2000. (ECF No. 58117.)
B. Larry Gets Angry at Female Employees Working at the College
The College has records describing several incidents throughout the 1990s of
altercations between Larry and various female employees of the College. (ECF No. 461111
302-09.)
A report authored by Veil Griffith, the College's Comptroller, covers her
relationship with Larry between 1989 and January of 1991:
in one instance, Larry
apparently became outraged after Griffith asked him about receipts; in another he entered
While unclear, the Brughs imply that the PHRC complaint that identified Larry was filed in
connection with the College's alleged racial discrimination.
2
3
her office without permission, became loud and offensive, and refused to leave. (Id. 'Il 302.)
According to the report, on multiple occasions, Larry raised his voice to Griffith's secretary,
Emily. (Id.)
On August 8, 1997, Joyce Neibauer, the College's Director of Student Activities,
wrote a letter to Leonard Volk, Acting Dean of Student Affairs, and copied it to President
Dillon (Id. 'Il 303.) The letter documented Ms. Neibauer' s concerns about Larry's personality
and temperament, stated that Larry told her that she "had better respect his position and
authority," and noted that Larry was interfering with her ability to work. (Id. 'Il 304.) Ms.
Neibauer wrote that Larry had harassed, threatened, and intimidated her, and that she had
obtained a radio so that she could call security if she needed to safely retreat from him. (Id.
'Il'Il 305-06.) Ms. Neibauer also expressed her belief that she was not the only employee of
the College who was on the receiving end of Larry's temper. (Id.<[ 307.)
In 1996, Larry disputed a performance evaluation that stated that his "unacceptable
behavior" had hindered his effectiveness in his job; Larry sought removal of this portion of
his evaluation. (Id. 'Il 228.) This behavior had occurred when the College asked him to
perform duties that were outside the scope of his routine duties. (Id.) The evaluation also
included a statement that "in the future, [Larry needed to learn] acceptable and professional
ways of dealing with differing opinions from that of the [D]ean of [S]tudents." (Id.)
A few days after Larry disputed his review, he brought concerns about his
relationship with his supervisor, Dr. Judy Newton, the Dean of Students, to the College in
a letter to its then-President, Dr. Edward Pierce. (Id. <['Il 8, 46, 224, 230.) Larry complained
of incidents between 1992 and 1996 where Dr. Newton was disrespectful of, and exhibited
4
unprofessional behavior towards, him and other male employees of the College. (Id. 11231.)
These incidents allegedly involved a failure to reprimand public displays of disrespect
towards Larry by Dr. Newton's secretary and Dr. Newton's diminishment of his
responsibilities. (Id. 11 232.) Larry also stated that he had considered filing a grievance
against Dr. Newton but that he had refrained from doing so after the PHRC mentioned him
as a possible witness in a matter in which Newton was involved. (Id. 11 230.) Ultimately,
the College found that Larry's claims against Dr. Newton were unsubstantiated and did
not discipline her. (Id. 1111 242, 245.) The College also determined that no justification
existed for removing the language that Larry objected to in his performance evaluation. (Id.
11 245.)
C. The Brughs Move Out of Campus Housing
As part of her compensation, Suzanne received campus housing and Larry lived
with her in campus housing for approximately thirteen years. (Id. 11<][ 25, 30, 68, 69.) The
Brughs left campus housing after Suzanne accepted the position of the College's Director
of Student Involvement, 3 a job that did not come with campus housing as part of its
compensation. (Id. 11<][ 62, 65.) The Brughs were upset that the College no longer provided
campus housing for them, and Larry went to President Dillon to complain in September of
2001. (Id. 11<][ 31, 69, 75.) There is a dispute over how upset the Brughs were over the loss
of their campus housing and how strongly Larry complained to President Dillon. (See ECF
MAC labels this position as both Director of Student Involvement and Director of Student
Development. (Compare ECF No. 46 'I[ 62, with id. 'l[ 65.) There is no indication, however, that these
are actually different positions; accordingly, the Court will refer to the position as Director of Student
Involvement.
3
5
No. 46 1IrlI 74-79; ECF No. 56 'II'II 74-79.) Following Larry's visit to President Dillon, she
issued a written reprimand to Larry regarding his conduct. (ECF No. 46 'II 84.) Larry avers
that he has no recollection of ever receiving the reprimand. (ECF No. 56 'II 84.) On October
1, 2001, Larry filed a grievance with the College, alleging that the reprimand was not
warranted, and that the College should remove it from his file. (Id. 'II 85; ECF No. 46 'II 85.)
The parties ultimately resolved the grievance and the College allowed the Brughs to stay in
campus housing while the Brughs built a permanent home and the College kept the
reprimand in Larry's file until June of 2002. (ECF No. 46 'II 88.) In 2008, Suzanne left the
College on good terms, having obtained a job at Pennsylvania Highlands Community
College. (Id.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?